Disable Tech Tree Specializations!

I really hate it. To the point I don't want to play the game anymore, its a game breaker. In all strategy games I focus on research and in GC3 my custom human race their first priority is to research, its part of my strategy. Playing with "specializations" sucks... I exited the game immediately I can't stand this...

Looking in the xml files seems to be a nightmare to disable them someone needs to spend hours and hours to make a mod for tech to work properly.

Stardock, Frogboy and anyone there, please give us back the full tech tree I'm sure most players will agree with me. Tech tree has been shortened so much and cut lots of good stuff in the game.

At least make it an option when we start a game we choose free or specialized. Don't force this terrible limitation..

Personally this made me to stop playing the game I will not play untill this is fixed or there is a mod which seems very complex someone needs to rewrite the entire tech trees for all races!

I am totally neutral on this as long as I can trade for most of them, but I can totally see the frustration by some. It makes no sense that you wouldn't research making a tech cheaper and smaller, as well as making it better.

Personally I always pick better because Cash is usually not a problem for me and there are other ways to create space.

Maybe they should make the other options available down the line toward the end of the tree, since the other options usually don't come at the same time anyway. You could add some later techs that reopen the possibility of picking up the options you missed.

In all strategy games I focus on research and in GC3 my custom human race their first priority is to research, its part of my strategy.

I also think tech research is important. Playing with "specializations" sucks... I exited the game immediately I can't stand this...

Looking in the xml files seems to be a nightmare to disable them someone needs to spend hours and hours to make a mod for tech to work properly.

[/quote]I'm like the idea of exclusive techs. This way you feel a loss when you pick another tech. Forcing you to play again another way. I do agree that this should be a mod option. If this was a pregame option I would play with it on.

Stardock, Frogboy and anyone there, please give us back the full tech tree I'm sure most players will agree with me.

[/quote] Well I disagree. I think that this will take time to get it right.

Tech tree has been shortened so much and cut lots of good stuff in the game.

[/quote]I wouldn't want shorter trees than what was in Dark Avatar. If they took out a lot of good stuff, hopefully they replaced it with better, or at least just as good stuff. And while I'm at it a more balanced system. Balanced doesn't mean same.

At least make it an option when we start a game we choose free or specialized. Don't force this terrible limitation..

[/quote]Don't mind the option idea. This would be an option I would play with it on. There will need to be fine tuning as we go. Instead of complaining about specialized tech paths. How about listing where it needs to be more balanced.

I'm one of those people who like to try to get everything. Or die trying. Or ignore them if it is a bad time to try to get them.

If I have the opportunity, I try to nab all the specializations. However, most of the time, you are better off pushing ahead nabbing better engines, weapons, or whatever it is that the specializations are supposed to improve. Or go nab a balance between weapons, defenses, engines, factories, and what have you.

As for ideological points, I've tried to nab all of those too with no success. From my understanding, there are unlockable improvements that would produce ideological points over time. Unfortunately for me, I haven't managed to nab all of them in a single game yet. If I had, I'm sure that the rest of the ideological bonuses would become mine given enough time.

I think there are very real difference between being able to get everything if you have the means to do so, whether or not you have the means to do so, and whether or not it is a good idea to try to do so. A good strategist is one that can function under less than idea circumstances. Any one can do well in ideal circumstances. If I have the means to nab all specializations, it probably means that I've already won, at which point locking me out of additional specializations won't make much of difference.

They are specialization trees, not generalisation trees! bonuses?[quote who="Franco fx" reply="5" id="3542021"]I am totally neutral on this as long as I can trade for most of them, but I can totally see the frustration by some. It makes no sense that you wouldn't research making a tech cheaper and smaller, as well as making it better.

Our own government usually agrees with you; even, though there are times when low tech beats high tech. F16, B52's, and F35 are just a few examples of low tech beating high tech.

Maybe they should make the other options available down the line toward the end of the tree, since the other options usually don't come at the same time anyway. You could add some later techs that reopen the possibility of picking up the options you missed.

I am in favor of having some techs have specializations/focus (chose one and then unable to chose the others), while others are optimizations (still able to choose all 3). It just makes conceptual sense. This allows for some restriction and meaningful game choice effecting each playthrough depending on your choices for those focuses/specializations. This also expands the tech tree back a little bit, allowing more optimizations to be available.

I vastly prefer the new system. Before, we had too many techs that did too little and there was really no meaningful choices because you could just grab them all.

Now, I feel like I have to earn my techs and my choices matter. Could the choices be made to be more difficult and less no-brainer? Sure, and that will come in time. But I prefer a game with meaningful choices rather than "gotta catch them all".

I am totally neutral on this as long as I can trade for most of them, but I can totally see the frustration by some. It makes no sense that you wouldn't research making a tech cheaper and smaller, as well as making it better.

Our own government usually agrees with you; even, though there are times when low tech beats high tech. F16, B52's, and F35 are just a few examples of low tech beating high tech.

Maybe they should make the other options available down the line toward the end of the tree, since the other options usually don't come at the same time anyway. You could add some later techs that reopen the possibility of picking up the options you missed.

If I have the opportunity, I try to nab all the specializations. However, most of the time, you are better off pushing ahead nabbing better engines, weapons, or whatever it is that the specializations are supposed to improve. Or go nab a balance between weapons, defenses, engines, factories, and what have you.

I think that each specialization will need to cover some of the basic paths. Its up to stardock to decide what they are.

I think there are very real difference between being able to get everything if you have the means to do so, whether or not you have the means to do so, and whether or not it is a good idea to try to do so. A good strategist is one that can function under less than idea circumstances. Any one can do well in ideal circumstances. If I have the means to nab all specializations, it probably means that I've already won, at which point locking me out of additional specializations won't make much of difference.

Agreed, the only difference is now I can enjoy resetting the game trying different paths with the same guy.

I strongly disagree in every way possible. It is the job of the game to give the player challenges. This decision point is a very good challenge. Its consequences affect the value of trade and diplomacy. That is a big win for gameplay. As far as I am concerned, this is genius game design and I hope to see a lot more touches like this.

You should never be able to get everything in a game. You should be able to find continuously cleverer ways to get more and more. If you didn't absolutely have to work for it, you wouldn't appreciate it near as much, no matter what the goal was. For a good game designer, your moans of frustration are the sounds of praise and applause. Paul is too polite to say it. But it's true.

Putting some techs in a box and call them specializations its nothing but a limtation. If someone wants to research one of the thre he can and then invest in different tech ignoring the other two.

When I want to improve my ship tech I will learn to make it harder, cheaper, smaller why just one?

For example today computers are faster, smaller and cheaper than they were 20 years ago. GC3 has been suggesting all the time that things should not work in a realistic way but differently...

While I got excited with improvements in the game the same time I got more and more dissapointed of limitations and thiings that work "differently".

Like tech ages, tech specializations, improvements that you have to build the obsolete versions before the new one you just researched, no borders any race can enter your empire and build a starbase or colonize a planet. There are lots of things that were set as game's rules and mechanics, I kept playing and saying ok ok and then more and more... but at some point I say no.. I don't like this.. not anymore.

Is GC3 a good game? Sure it is, I like it a lot but all those issues have accumulated to the point I don't like it anymore.

If Stardock wants to set some new rules fine but it doesn't mean anyone likes them. Personally I won't be playing GC3 anymore, but I will keep reading hoping things will change or there will be mods to allow me play the game in a more realistic way with no limitations.

Conceptually, I much prefer a game where my choices make a difference in the long-run. It makes the choices meaningful. So, in concept, I much prefer having some areas of specialization which allow more strategy and planning. In the ideology system, unfortunately, it is sort of a free for all - I would want them to be mutually exclusive, but would prefer if you have more points in one ideology, then the other ideologies cost more.

The game really does need something to make choices more meaningful- not just for a few turns, but for the rest of your game. Civilizations make choices that effect their futures. So, again, in concept, this is a good thing.

I think the problem is that, as it stands, there are too many specializations, effectively cutting out a decent chunk of the tech tree. Also some specializations, it would seem logical to be able to just invest more time and then figure it out rather than be unable to do so. However, I do think there should be researches that are mutually exclusive in order to make the choices matter.

I am not in favor, at all, of a sandbox game in which, in the end, I always pretty much end up with all the same things every time.

Specialization is just a name. If they were never called "Specializations" I doubt many people would be clamoring from them to be restricted in many of the cases.

As it is, SOME of the "specializations" absolutely need to be re-worked. Being only able to fully upgrade a couple of Extreme Worlds is Unfun. Trying to finagle the game so other factions research them for you is not realistically possible in some cases, as they are at the very end of the tech tree.

Yes, I can see the case for some specializations being exclusive, though I don't agree with the idea. But others? Like, again, Extreme Worlds? No way. That really needs to change, IMO.

Not happening. I am very very much against the idea of being able to pick all 3 specializations. They're supposed to be a CHOICE you're making at the exclusion of the others.

The problem some of us have isn't so much being forced to make a choice (that's a separate discussion) it's that some of the choices make little sense and/or negatively impact gameplay. I've been harping on Extreme Worlds a lot, but I think it's the most glaring problem. People just aren't going to like being able to only fully upgrade two of their Extreme World type of planets. The diplomacy option isn't always available or desirable.

The other major one that seems to be irksome to me at first glance is Invasion Tactics. I can see why, say, choosing between faster engines or smaller engines makes sense from both a game balance and flavor viewpoint when researching a tech. I can also see the thing about political parties being exclusive. But when it comes to learning invasion tactics, less so.

Restricting what worlds are fully colonizable and being able to learn only a couple of invasion tactics is a step back from GC II. Again, IMO.